Please note: we have been online over ten years, and we want The Trek BBS to continue as a free site. But if you block our ads we are at risk.Please consider unblocking ads for this site - every ad you view counts and helps us pay for the bandwidth that you are using. Thank you for your understanding.

Welcome! The Trek BBS is the number one place to chat about Star Trek with like-minded fans. Please login to see our full range of forums as well as the ability to send and receive private messages, track your favourite topics and of course join in the discussions.

If you are a new visitor, join us for free. If you are an existing member please login below. Note: for members who joined under our old messageboard system, please login with your display name not your login name.

Warner Brothers have released the official App. Normally, I don't bother with such things but there's a lot of new images in the App.

Edit: TORN has posted all of the new images so now you don't need to get the App.

__________________
"Eccleston was a tiger and Tennant was, well, Tigger. Smith [is] an uncoordinated housecat who pretends that he meant to do that after falling off a piece of furniture." - Lynne M. Thomas

Back when I saw Fellowship of the Ring, I watched it with someone who had never read the books. He expressed surprise that they killed of Gandalf so early when it would have made sense to do it in the second movie after everyone had become truly acquainted with him. Not wanting to spoil the fact that he comes back, I pointed out that the books start with the Hobbit, so it really was the second movie.

I'm wondering if the movies are built so you can watch the Hobbit first. On the one hand, the basic narrative story is probably capable of supporting a viewing of the Hobbit first. On the other hand, they seem to be using a framing story which might make it more difficult. I wonder if they're approaching this to make the Hobbit accessible if you watch it first or with the assumption that you'll watch "An Unexpected Journey" fourth.

Back when I saw Fellowship of the Ring, I watched it with someone who had never read the books. He expressed surprise that they killed of Gandalf so early when it would have made sense to do it in the second movie after everyone had become truly acquainted with him. Not wanting to spoil the fact that he comes back, I pointed out that the books start with the Hobbit, so it really was the second movie.

I'm wondering if the movies are built so you can watch the Hobbit first. On the one hand, the basic narrative story is probably capable of supporting a viewing of the Hobbit first. On the other hand, they seem to be using a framing story which might make it more difficult. I wonder if they're approaching this to make the Hobbit accessible if you watch it first or with the assumption that you'll watch "An Unexpected Journey" fourth.

We know that the framing story for An Unexpected Journey is inexplicably linked to and with The Fellowship of the Ring, which means that there are two logical places within that film and story where said framing story could take place: just prior to the 'Concerning Hobbits' prologue (which would make the Extended Cut of TFotR the 'definitive' version of the story) or after Bilbo and Frodo's reunion at Rivendell.

Although either placement for the framing story is logical, I believe that there were images released months ago which pointed directly at the former (with Elijah Wood and Ian Holm dressed in the costumes they are wearing at the beginning of Fellowship).

The question of whether or not it will be possible to view the Hobbit trilogy first will, I believe, ultimately be answered by exactly how Peter edits the framing story portion of An Unexpected Journey, although, if I had to make a guess right now, I would put money on the audience in fact being able to view the films chronologically, even if that isn't the direct intent. IOW, I don't think Peter will edit the framing story in a way that intentionally makes it impossible for the Hobbit trilogy to be viewed prior to the LotR Trilogy.

__________________Starbuck: We're all friendlies. So, let's just... be friendly.
"There is no 'supposed to be.' It's an adaptation, a word that literally means change. Why bother making a new version if it doesn't offer a fresh approach?" - Christopher L. Bennett

Although either placement for the framing story is logical, I believe that there were images released months ago which pointed directly at the former (with Elijah Wood and Ian Holm dressed in the costumes they are wearing at the beginning of Fellowship).

Also, the first shot of the trailer shows Bilbo and Frodo together in Hobbiton (and I think all the other shots of old Bilbo show him in Bag End).

^ That's where the glimpse I remembered came from; it was the trailer, not a still image.

As an addendum to what I said earlier, TORN unequivocally says that Jackson and Co. want the Hobbit films to lead directly into the LotR films, which further lessens the likelihood that the framing story will be edited in such a way as to prevent the chronological viewing of the two trilogies.

Does anybody have any comments/thoughts on the new 'break point' for An Unexpected Journey? I understand that the first film now breaks with the Company pinned down in Mirkwood by Wargs and fire. I personally think it's a neat place to break the film because it's a significant departure from the 'peaceful note' pattern that was used in all 3 of the LotR films, and because it could potentially 'set the table' for The Desolation of Smaug to also break on a cliffhanger, which I think would also be neat.

__________________Starbuck: We're all friendlies. So, let's just... be friendly.
"There is no 'supposed to be.' It's an adaptation, a word that literally means change. Why bother making a new version if it doesn't offer a fresh approach?" - Christopher L. Bennett

I'm pretty sure the shot of Bag End included the "no admittance except on party business" sign on the gate, plus Holm's vocal performance is clearly the "well preserved" Bilbo and not the rapidly ageing one from the end of RotK. I think it's safe to say the framing story takes place immediately before 'Fellowship' starts.

Oddly enough, it actually fits into the canon of the story better than one might expect. Remember that Tolkien re-wrote how Bilbo got the ring in later printings to bring things in-line with LotR and that he accounted for the discrepancy by saying that Bilbo (already under the ring's influence) lied about the exact circumstances. Only much later (just prior to LotR) did he admit the truth and amend the account in his book. Though if memory serves, it was Gandalf that got the truth out of him, not Frodo.

Does anybody have any comments/thoughts on the new 'break point' for An Unexpected Journey? I understand that the first film now breaks with the Company pinned down in Mirkwood by Wargs and fire. I personally think it's a neat place to break the film because it's a significant departure from the 'peaceful note' pattern that was used in all 3 of the LotR films, and because it could potentially 'set the table' for The Desolation of Smaug to also break on a cliffhanger, which I think would also be neat.

It seems pretty clear that that's where they'll end AUJ, but I don't think it will be a cliffhanger. I think the Eagles will show up and take them to safety, and the movie will end with a brief respite and a warning to Bilbo from Gandalf that the journey's far from over.

For a chapter-by-chapter breakdown of the three movies, I think it'll go something like this:

An Unexpected Journey
1. An Unexpected Party
2. Roast Mutton
3. A Short Rest
4. Over Hill and Under Hill
5. Riddles in the Dark
6. Out of the Frying Pan Into the Fire

The Desolation of Smaug
7. Queer Lodgings
8. Flies and Spiders
9. Barrels Out of Bond
10. A Warm Welcome
11. On the Doorstep
12. Inside Information
13. Not at Home
14. Fire and Water

There and Back Again
15. The Gathering of the Clouds
16. A Thief in the Night
17. The Clouds Burst
18. The Return Journey
19. The Last Stage

Of course, I'm sure there will be overlap. I doubt the movies will flow exactly as the book did. And then there will be the additions Jackson has lifted from the Appendices.

^ Quite the reasonable breakdown. Although, personally, I'd like to see Ch. 14 be the start of Film 3. The end of Ch. 14 feels too "final" to be a dramatic lead in to another film (making all of Film 3 seem like one of those "extra endings" that are often criticized in ROTK).

Rather, it'd make for one hell of an opening scene. Of course, shifting Ch. 14 to Book 3 would require something else to be the climactic finale to Film 2 - and I think the conclusion of the White Council's business at Dol Guldur would fit nicely.

^ Quite the reasonable breakdown. Although, personally, I'd like to see Ch. 14 be the start of Film 3. The end of Ch. 14 feels too "final" to be a dramatic lead in to another film (making all of Film 3 seem like one of those "extra endings" that are often criticized in ROTK).

Rather, it'd make for one hell of an opening scene. Of course, shifting Ch. 14 to Book 3 would require something else to be the climactic finale to Film 2 - and I think the conclusion of the White Council's business at Dol Guldur would fit nicely.

Ooo, good thinking. I was trying to figure out where the Dol Guldur part would go, because I thought it might make the third movie a little overcrowded. Your idea would work nicely, anyway, since Gandalf returns to Bilbo in chapter sixteen.

Yeah, I agree that would work. I hadn't thought about Gandalf's return. I had thought to put much of the Dol Guldur stuff in the third movie, but the second would make a lot more sense.

Reverend wrote:

Oddly enough, it actually fits into the canon of the story better than one might expect. Remember that Tolkien re-wrote how Bilbo got the ring in later printings to bring things in-line with LotR and that he accounted for the discrepancy by saying that Bilbo (already under the ring's influence) lied about the exact circumstances. Only much later (just prior to LotR) did he admit the truth and amend the account in his book. Though if memory serves, it was Gandalf that got the truth out of him, not Frodo.

I was reading a little about this. I actually had completely forgotten that he didn't win the ring because of the riddles. I wonder, as a subtle lead-up to the LOTR, they have him explicitly lie and say that he won the ring because of the riddles (not just neglecting to tell them earlier on). For most people, it'll just be a sign of the corrupting influence of the ring. But it would also be a shout out to hard core Tolkien fans who actually read the prologue.

I also saw something called The Quest of Erebor. I could see this as a flashback scene between Thorin and Gandalf, perhaps at the beginning of the third movie, that explicitly connects Smaug to Sauron and explains why Bilbo was chosen.

Back when I saw Fellowship of the Ring, I watched it with someone who had never read the books. He expressed surprise that they killed of Gandalf so early when it would have made sense to do it in the second movie after everyone had become truly acquainted with him. Not wanting to spoil the fact that he comes back, I pointed out that the books start with the Hobbit, so it really was the second movie.

I'm wondering if the movies are built so you can watch the Hobbit first. On the one hand, the basic narrative story is probably capable of supporting a viewing of the Hobbit first. On the other hand, they seem to be using a framing story which might make it more difficult. I wonder if they're approaching this to make the Hobbit accessible if you watch it first or with the assumption that you'll watch "An Unexpected Journey" fourth.

The framing story aspect is interesting, I wonder how they are going to do it. Bilbo starts writing There and Back Again at the beginning of Lord of the Rings, and had finished it by the time Frodo arrived at Rivendell.

So we're just about three months away from the release of An Unexpected Journey (woot! ), and I was just thinking about something. When I start up the grading/review thread for that movie, should I also start a new discussion/speculation thread for the sequels or just keep using this thread? Personally I don't see a need to start a brand new thread, but others might feel differently.